ML20197H802

Forwards Supplemental Responses to Hydrologic Engineering Input to Fes Submittal.Appropriate Changes Made to Correct 840508 Error in benefit-cost Data on Table 6-1

ML20197H802
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	06/26/1984
From:	Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-1280 NUDOCS 8407030192
Download: ML20197H802 (4)

Text

..

b

~' ~

J!.i 2 : 5 4

' Docket No. 50-508 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM: William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology, DE

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROLOGIC-ENGINEERING INPUT TO THE WNP-3 FES Plant Name: WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3 Licensing Stage: 0L Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 3; V. Nerses, PM In a memorandum dated May 8, 1984, we submitted our responses to comments received on the WNP-3 DES as input to the FES. The attached responses supplement that submittal. We would also like to point out an error in the Benefit-Cost data on Table 6-1. The surface water consumption'is listed as 1.2 m3 /sec (42 ft3/sec). This is not correct so appropriate changes have ,

been made on the attached copy of the table.

M William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology Division of Engineering

Attachment:

As stated cc: w/o attachment DISTRIBUTION:

R. Vollmer g,,,Deckets w/ attachment R. Ballard G. Knighton V. Nerses B. Singh M. Fliegel R. Samworth 407030192 Apocg osoog 840626%

R. Gonzales DE:EH I. W '

DE:EH,EB

()k Q)DEqiEBf DE:AD/MCET RGonzal s:ws MFliegel u - SRBa hrd WVJohnston 6/21/84 6/).2/84 g ,6/15/84 6/r'/84

?) e Comment 50-8 Cumulativa impacts on regional water use should be more explicitly evaluated, for one. In the area of endangered species, the theorization that because of an eagle's keen eyesight, collision with a cooling tower seemed unlikely, seemed less important than some field data on the effects of construction '

noises on the habitat as a proxy for the anticipated noise from the pumping station.

Staff Response to Comment 50-8 As described in Section 4.3.1.1.2, water for plant operation will be produced from two Ranney wells. About 88% of this water will come from the Chehalis River via infiltration and 12.% will come from the alluvial valley fill. The 3 3 station is expected to consumptively use about 0.8 m /sec (28 ft /sec).

3 3 88% of this [0.7 m /sec (25 ft /sec)] will be surface water from the Chehalis 3

River and 12% [0.1 m /sec (3 ft3 /sec)] will be groundwater.

3 The average flow in the Chehalis River is about 193 m /sec (6824 ft3 /sec), and 3

the 7-day 10 year low flow is about 15 m /sec (530 ft3/sec). Comparing these _

flows with the station consumptive water use shows that WNP-3 will use less than 5% of the 7-day 10 year low flow and less than 0.4% of the average flow in the~Chehalis River. Because the amount of surface water to be used by the station is but a small amount of the flow in the Chehalis River, the staff concludes that operation of WNP-3 will not adversely affect other surface water users.

The amount of g) aundwater to be consumptively used is only about 0.1 m3 /sec (3 ft 3/sec). As discussed in Section 5.3.2, during the CP stage withdrawal of groundwater was expected to lower the water levels in the Chehalis River, Elizabeth Creek and the adjacent marsh. This assessment was made assuming that the plant would consumptively use about 1.7 3m /sec (60 ft3 /sec). Since

. WNP-5 has been cancelled, water use will only be about 0.8 m 3

/sec (28 ft3 /sec) so the impacts of pumping from the Ranney wells will be appreciably less than they were at the CP stage because of the diminished water use.

Concerning the second part of the comment, the staff concurs that field data '

are always helpful.

Comment WNP 3-27 In Table 6.1 groundwater consumption is listed as "none". Consistent with Sections 4.2.4 and 4.3.1.1.2 this should probably be "small".

Staff Response to Comment WNP 3-27 The staff agrees with this comment and the suggested change has been made.

Comment WNP 3-28 Section 5.5.2 rather than 5.3.2 should be given as a reference to thermal effects. " Cooling lake drawdown" is incorrectly listed as an impact in Table 6.1.

Staff Response to Comment 3-28 -

The staff agrees with this comment and the suggested changes have been made.

r 3 -

Table 6.1 Benefit-cost summary Primary impact and effect Quantity

• on population or resources (Section) Impacts **

BENEFITS Direct Electrical energy 6 billion kWh/yr large Additional capacity 1240 MWe Large (Section 6.4.2)

COSTS -

Environmental

. Damage suffered by other water users 0.7

' Surface water consumption 3M m3 /sec Emall ft 3/sec)5.3.2) gsj @(Section Surface water contamination Small Groundwater consumption d,fm Sec ~~ l'._ _ .10 3534 d ection 4.3.2). None Groundwater contamination (3 ft/sec}

Damage to aquatic resources '

Impingement and entrainment (Section 5.5.J L S None Thermal effects (Section 5.)C!) Small Chemical discharge (Section 5.3.2) Small Damage to terrestrial' resources Station operations Cooling tower emissions (Section 5.5.1) Small

-(~: ~W C : : ' ' ,, ! _ ' . f - - f: - -

-Z' Transmission line maintenance (Section 5.2.2) Small Adverse nonradiological health effects Water quality changes (Section 5.3.2) .None Air quality changes (Section 5.4)-

-Adverse radiological health effects -

Routine operation (Section 5.9.3) Small Postulated accidents (Section 5.9.4) Small Uranium fuel cycle (Section 5.10) Small Adverse socioeconomic effects Effect on historic and archeologi- .

cal resources (Section 5.7) Small Traffic (Section 5.8) Small Demands on public facilities and services (Section 5.8) Small

• See footnotes at end of tables.

WNP-3 DES 6-2